DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

section 14A of the Act. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO is unsustainable technically. Accordingly, this part of the argument of Ground No.1 is allowed. We find adjudication of the other issues of the said ground relating to merits becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the same are dismissed as academic.” Therefore, on the technical grounds, the Ground No.1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are squarely applicable and the same was applied correctly during the course of the assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting of Rs. 2445047/- on account of foreign travel expenses

SANDVIK ASIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT CIR.- 10,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1459/Pun/2010 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2006-07

14A of the Act at ₹ 4,84,611/-; b) Disallowance of software expenses being capital in nature, however, depreciation @ 60% was allowed and net addition was of ₹ 10,70,641/-; c) Adjustment of interest paid under section 220(2) of the Act against interest received under section 244A of the Act at ₹ 23,43,436/-; d) Software deduction claimed

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

3 of Appeal, appellant requests that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the income Tax Rules, 1962 may please be restricted to only such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning of exempt income and exclude expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 5. The appellant requests that

FAURECIA INTERIOR SYSTEMS INDIA P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules Without prejudice to Ground 14, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, erred in not granting deduction under section 10A of the Act of Rs. 3,34,928 for disallowance invoked under section 14Aofthe Act without appreciating that the Appellant is entitled to deduction on profits derived

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Depreciation claim 3. Deduction and deposit of TDS 4. Deduction under Chapter VIA 5. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income 6. Tax deduction, TDS deposit and TDS statement filing 7. Deduction/Exemption u/s 10A/10AA 8. Income from house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer after considering the special audit report u/s 142(2A) of the Act on 27.12.2007 computing the total income at Rs.583,06,70,963/-. 4. The assessee had filed an application for registration u/s 12AA of the Act on 10.02.2006 which was rejected by the CIT-II, Thane. Aggrieved

M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 32(2) of the Act. As per Chapter IV-D, the book profits are determined after deduction of depreciation. In the assessee‟s case, there would be loss after deduction of unabsorbed carry forward depreciation to the tune of Rs.10,84,75,430/-, therefore, remuneration to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- would only be allowable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,,

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 32(2) of the Act. As per Chapter IV-D, the book profits are determined after deduction of depreciation. In the assessee‟s case, there would be loss after deduction of unabsorbed carry forward depreciation to the tune of Rs.10,84,75,430/-, therefore, remuneration to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- would only be allowable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

depreciation on assets, the assessee could not claim scientific research expenditure under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act on the said expenditure of ₹ 2.01 crores. However, expenses incurred on purchase of fans and motor vehicles totaling ₹ 8,09,016/- were held to be allowed under section 35(1)(iv) of the Act. The CIT(A) further directed the revenue

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

3. In this case, assessee had filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Act on 30.09.2014 for A.Y.2014-15 declaring total income of Rs.1,87,17,250/-. Subsequently, assessee has also filed revised ITA No.998/PUN/2023[R]&C.O.No.4/PUN/2024 [A] CTR Manufacturing Industries Private Limited AY 2014-15 return of income on 16.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3